[4000 words of gibberish deleted -editor.]

WOW! all that in one breath.lol Russell, I think you wrote a good piece but I've forgotten what it was...Kauki befuddled my brain.LOL

To those polled who are not willing to say that "Oregon is not going in the right direction," I would put a finer point on it by asking: Is Oregon living up to its potential? I would guess that people feel overwhelmingly that it is not.

Mr. Sadler points out the fiscal mess that reigns in Salem after 12 years of Republican control of the House. But that is just the beginning of it. Many people do not realize how our "winner takes all" system has left the Republican House leadership in control of EVERY House commiteee chairmanship and every committee majority! Fiscal crisis has fed into the hands of the Republicans as they have used the their control of budgets to direct POLICY outcomes through either bullying agencies or directly cutting funding for programs (read: for implementation of LAW) that they do not like. While people are beginning to appreciate the role of bad House leadership in the gridlock that is state government, they may not be aware of just how central this gridlock is to the Republican strategy for achieving their "vision" for Oregon.

Which brings me back to Oregon's "potential." Ron Saxton is right to talk about the need for "leadership" in state government. It is the spirit of engaging the public through "leadership" that is especially missing in the Oregon House. Extracting policy concessions through threats to an agency's budget is not what open, public and inspiring leadership is about. The Rubublican strategy for governing is confined to small committee rooms from which there is little public news, and where hidden arm-twisting takes the place of compelling legislative movements supported by a broad public interest.

(As an aside, don't forget that the long (now ended) dominance of Republicans in the Senate has left us, still, with a legacy of appointments to agency directorships and commissions. Agency decisions are open and public, but ofen completely unknown to the broad "public" whom they affect.)

So appart from getting the slogal right, Saxton has failed to indicate the direction that his "leadership" will take us, and --more importantly -- failed to reveal that the House Republican's model for "leadership" is a far cry from the open and compelling appeal to Oregonians to reach for their "potential." As someone who left the Republican party only after lobbying in Salem for two sessions, I know how desparately we hold on to our assumptions about which constitutes the "winning team." But its time to get real. The fiscal mess is only the tip of the iceberg, and "not going in the right direction" is no longer strong enough language do describe the extent of the Republican fiasco.

Anyone know where I can find early voting figures? Ie., ballots received, party of ballots, and comparison to 4 years ago? Some mention on here about major Dem turnout in ballots received... where can I confirm this?

While I agree that increasingly nationalized Republican politics is bad for Oregon, I'm afraid I must disagree that they have been unable to win statewide. We have a Republican Senator and the majority in the House, who must face election every 2 years, is Republican and that is an indicator the they have attracted those voters. Whether that holds this year is a very open question.

Greg Walden is the epitiome of Republican National Party politics and he looks sure to win the 02 Congressional District, about 2/3 of Oregon's landmass and 1/5 of the population. The House seats in the 2nd look pretty safe for Republicans.

This year's elections may provide a lesson to Republicans in Oregon, might. I'm not sure the holders of safe seats are going to learn much, they didn't vote on National issues that are killing US House Republicans. Tom Butler R60, doesn't seem particularly ammenable to reason.

Hm... where was the post that made reference to the breakdown... like 56 to 44% Dem to GOP ratio of votes in so far? Has there been any update to that?

Stressing out ... especially with this Hussein verdict 2 days before election. Jeeezus.

I can't believe that Burns is even with Tester!

[N]early half the people polled say “Oregon is not going in the right direction.”

There is a danger in assuming that all those who believe Oregon is going in the wrong direction think the Democrats would take the state in the right direction.

I guarantee that some portion (though I don't know how many) of those people think that taxes should be lower still, that government should be smaller still, that "values" should be legislated, etc. In other words, that the Republican leadership has so far not done enough for these people.

Until recently I was a Republican -- but unfortunately my own "RINO" status ultimately became too much and I am now registered NAV. I agree that the Oregon Republican party (leadership in particular) has become openly hostile to moderation. Moderates in leadership are forced out. Rank-and-file like myself... well, we just know when we aren't wanted.

Having said that, though, the real problem I have is that while I don't much care for the candidates from the right, I don't much agree with the candidates from the left either. Am I happy with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans? No way.

But would I be happy instead with the agenda of the Democrats?

No way.

Perhaps apathy from the "lean-Republicans" will help the Democrats this election. But with ballot measures to vote on as well as candidates, I expect that a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't bother voting for Republicans will go ahead and do so anyway when they vote for the measures.

Which is why I wouldn't be too encouraged by the numerous polls that indicate approval of Republicans is so low -- a substantial number of people who don't approve of them are going to vote for them anyway.

We need open threads! :)

Chuck nailed the first thing I thought of when reading the comment "Oregon Republicans have not won a partisan statewide office since Gov. Vic Atiyeh left office in 1986." Sen. Smith was the example I thought of also.

So, even though there is an exception (Sen. Smith), I would have to agree with the general observation that Republicans just are not as attractive to Indies as the Democrats are.

The thing that I find very interesting is to be able to compare the 2002 Governor race to the 2006 race. From a comparison standpoint, I would expect that the more moderate Republican candidate would do better against the very same Democrat than the more conservative Republican. I would have expected that Saxton would have done better against Kulo than Mannix did, if only because I would expect that the Indies would have found Saxton more appealing than Mannix. Polls do not share my expectations...we will see if the polls are close to the mark, or off the mark.

As someone who actively campaigned for a 3rd party candidate in the fall of 1996 knowing full well it could lead to Gordon Smith (a guy with a voting record who had actually talked about the issues) winning, I would add that the issue is general candidate quality.

Russell is right about Republican candidate quality. But there are those of us who never quite had as much faith in the Democratic Party (federal level esp.) after Bruggere bought the 1996 US Senate primary by outspending his nearest opponent 10-1 and the next nearest 100-1. There were 3 high quality gentlemen in that field, but no one wanted to talk about their issues because DSCC wanted Bruggere as part of their Kerrey Millionaire strategy--which didn't elect any of those target candidates in 1996.

The lesson should be this: candidate quality matters. As mentioned on another topic, Carol Voisin is obviously a quality candidate. There have been quality candidates running for 2nd District in the past. But not at a time where there was a potential Democratic tide like this year.

This year also marks the best crop of legislative candidates in very many years. But has been discussed in many venues, there have been target candidates and forgotten candidates. Not exactly Howard Dean's "show up everywhere, contest everything" philosophy.

Based on what I have heard from personal conversations, if there are "forgotten" candidates who lose close elections, that may spell problems for Dems. in 2008. People who worked their hearts out for such candidates may wonder whether another go-around is worthwhile. If the candidates who lose close ones say they won't run again unless assured of party support, or if potential candidates ask the 2006 candidates and activists if running would be worthwhile, the answer might not be what some people want to hear.

On the other hand, if Sal Peralta wins, that should permanently blow the "sorry we can't help you--lousy R to D ratio" nonsense forever.

Party organizations are run by humans--and sometimes they go overboard in their zeal to have ideologically pure candidates, or try to make picking winners before the start of the election year a science instead of an art.

And although there are those here who won't like this statement, Russell had a good concluding statement. Oregon could use more candid, maverick candidates in both parties who were closer to Ben Westlund than to the core of their party leadership (caucus, state party, or whoever). Legislators who put constitutents and problem solving as higher priority than the wishes of their party are what this state needs.

spot on, Russell, as usual. What is funny is that the Ds are trying the same thing, selectively, (see Lamont, Ned), but at the same time are actually nominating a pro-life D (see Lee, Chuck), a type that is pretty much an endangered species in this state. I think both parties have been captured by the extremes of their parties to a great degree...the R's just more so in this state. I just read an amazing article about how moveon.org is supporting Heath Shuler in NC... he's a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat. I didn't think those left wingers were capable of that, but I was wrong. This election season has some great glimmers of hope for those of us in the radical middle. It would be great to see moderates like Shuler, Steele in MD, and others elected for a change, instead of worthless hacks like Delay and Pelosi. I'm voting for Ted for Governor...for most of the reasons you noted I'm not voting for Saxson. I hope the Ds take back the US House, although I can't bring myself to vote for Hooley... what a waste of a Congressional seat. Too bad I can't vote for Earl or Peter, both excellent Ds...sadly ofset by people like Wu and Hooley.

Let's hope the Ds don't repeat the Rs pattern of ethnic-cleansing their moderates if they win this time around.

about the time Oregon Rs were going into decline, Californians were beginning their mass exodus north. how much of the neoconization of the GOP in OR is due to these Prop13 surrendar monkeys? remember, OR Republicans used to be moderate: that's why they could win statewise office. the active Rs stopped being moderate long ago, and with luck, we'll see them reap the fruits of that shift to the right with a loss of their last hold on any power.

If Mr. Sadler is as "independent" as he would like us to believe (political research has shown that most independents vote as if they were in one party or the other), I assume he will be voting for "RINO's" such as Saxton and Tom Cox. Tom Cox goes so far as to decry what he calls the "republican taliban." Can you imagine voting for a pro-life Ted Kulongoski? Or another D that enjoyed refering to "democratic marxists?" Yeah right.

The republicans are fielding more moderate candidates then the democrats this term. Period. In any other election cycle this race would be over by now. Good grief, even democrats generally don't like Kulongoski. Lesser of two weavils cough evils usually doesn't make for the strongest of campaigns.

Dan,

That argument for IRV is not going to win many converts on this site. Folks here [including me] like it when Republicans lose.

Of course, the shoe may shift to the other foot some day, with Green candidates siphoning votes from the Democrats, putting Republicans in office. On balance, I agree that IRV is a good idea, but not because it would help Saxton.

Kari,

lol, looks like I have my work cut out for me.

Paul,

I went to your Early Voting website, found nothing of substance and decided to check out your pdf on Oregon's ballot returns. Man, you must find someone to grammar check your writing. Examples abound, like; "It's been", "there is currently", "comparing ballot returns this far", "In Oregon in 2006, A lot more" "there are not many" (as opposed to 'there are fewer'), "this turnout accords with" - all in only two pages!

If you use a written medium to convey ideas, then you must abide by the rules of written work. How could we ever take your research seriously if you can't even bother to write it up so that a fifth grader would be at peace with the syntax and usage?

Is there any topic that t.a. barnhart can't turn into an opportunity to foam at the mouth about the Californians? Oh, yeah! He hasn't blamed us yet for the fact that he thinks that NPR sucks... but I'm guessing that somewhere in the dimmer recesses of his mind the thought is bubbling to the surface that NPR's decline coincided with the arrival of all us "Prop 13 surrendar(sic) monkeys" in Oregon.

Question for Russell: Does the divided executive branch (separate offices for Attorney General, State Treasurer, etc elected independent of the Governor) hamper the leadership role that the voters expect from the Governor? It seems to me that people are generally disappointed with the leadership of the Governor, no matter who is in office. They expect the Governor to have more influence over the legislature and policies, and I wonder if this is due to expectations raised in the campaigns, or the government structure, or is just my bias in observation?

Captured:

The governor can exert leadership under the current system if the governor talks with legislators regularly, is open with the public, explains actions concretely, stands up for open government (why wasn't this current one as outspoken as Kitzhaber about the actions of legislative leadership?) says "If you write the bill this way I will veto it" and then carries through, inspires ordinary citizens, explains nominations "this nominee is better for Oregon than the person now on the board because...", and does what federal Democrats have been doing in the last several hours, "Here are the specific things we hope to accomplish shortly after taking office".

But if a governor just talks to friendly people in closed rooms, it doesn't matter about the structure of government.

My grandfather was in politics in the 1930s in another state before primaries. The Gov. was nominated at state convention, and then usually chose "running mates"---AG, State Treasurer, etc. My grandfather became the AG nominee because the convention wanted him although he was the Gov. nominee's second choice.

I prefer the current system where we can vote for individuals we trust instead of some mechanism telling us we don't have that right.